The University of Southern California is facing a federal civil rights investigation after students filed a complaint that alleged the school ignored campus rape and failed to prosecute attackers even after they confessed.

One anonymous USC student involved in the complaint said that campus police had decided she wasn't raped because her alleged attacker did not orgasm, the Huffington Post reported Monday.

"Because he stopped, it was not rape," she was told, per the complaint. "Even though his penis penetrated your vagina, because he stopped, it was not a crime."

The campus police did not refer the student's case to the Los Angeles police department.

Another student, according to the complaint, was told by the university Department of Public Safety that women should not "go out, get drunk and expect not to get raped" when she tried to report a rape.

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights is investigating potential violations of Title IX, the federal gender equality law that criminilizes a failure to respond to claims of sexual violence.

Reed, the lead complainant, said USC dismissed her claim that her ex-boyfriend had raped her, despite her providing audio recordings of him admitting to it. At one point, Reed said, a USC official told her the goal was to offer an "educative" process, not to "punish" the assailant.

Now you’re putting victims in a Salem witch trial sort of double-bind. According to Akins, it wouldn’t have been rape if she got pregnant, because would me she enjoyed or welcomed it. And, if she doesn’t get pregnant, well, by the USC standard it sounds like it wasn’t rape.

THey used to teach such...now it’s all about being okay to use the bathroom of either sex, or suing the school for such privilege, or not knowing what the gender of the person is until the nperson tells us which gender...along with other nonsense...

Can't be helped, the local police will only refer you to the campus guys and won't step in. My kid had a stalker at college. Went to the campus police and the college lawyer said ignore it so they did. Sheriff, town cops, state police wished me luck but wouldn't help. My kid got a stay away order and the school kicked my kid off of campus! Went to the state's attorney and he wished me luck but wouldn't touch it. Need to keep those bad stats down, don't ya know....

Is it really any wonder that Vince Foster’s body turned up in a place where Park Police would have jurisdiction? ...Back in the ‘70’s, every USAF SP that got out wanted to be a Capitol Police. None had ever arrested, fought with or investigated a real criminal in over 20 years of duty.

No one should knowing put themselves into a position which increases the likelihood being a victim to a crime. Getting loaded in certain situations will do that.

However, being stupid does not magically legalize an assault.

I might say that a girl was stupid and shouldn’t have been surprised that she was raped because of the situation she allowed herself to be in. BUT, a very big but, the perpetrator of the crime is not legitimized. Rape is rape, a girl being stupid and drunk does not change that.

Leaving your car unlocked does not legalize car theft.

I’m speaking in general. I’m NOT say this girl was stupid. Not sufficient facts to comment on that.

“Doesn’t SexEd 101 teach that it is possible to get pregnant without an orgasm? Healthy sperm cells can survive in the pre-ejactulant lubricant which is secreted almost every time a guy gets a hard on.”

That’s actually incorrect. What you’re describing is a commonly believed myth that is based on a kernel of misunderstood biological truth.

Sperm is NOT secreted in pre-ejaculatory fluid. There are many studies on this over the last 20 years or so, and in every one I have seen NO sperm was detected in pre-ejaculatory fluid. Chemical assays of pre-ejaculatory fluid demonstrate an absence of chemical markers associated with sperm, and numerous studies have failed to locate sperm in said fluid.

Now, keep in mind, it IS possible for sperm-containing ejaculate from a prior orgasm to linger within the urethra for a short while, until urination occurs, but pre-ejaculatory fluid is absent of sperm.

I believe part of the reason that myth is so enduring is that it offers an easy, quick, understandable explanation for why coitus interruptus is generally not an effective method of birth control under patterns of normal use.

The reality though is more complicated - the coitus interruptus method suffers from the facts that immediate re-insertion after orgasm can result in pregnancy, that coitus interruptus requires conscious effort by one or both parties to cease intercourse around the time that rational thought becomes decreasingly likely, it also requires judgement to be made about how near an approaching orgasm may be, and also suffers from the fact quite a lot of men may experience some form of premature ejaculation at some point in their lives.

It’s a lot easier just to belt out a little medical “white-lie” to the teenagers.

Details are crucially important. Let’s try this: If they drank together, went back to someone’s place, sex started taking place, she suddenly ‘woke up’ and said “no!”, and he immediately stopped... but she is still mad that her inebriated state helped make it happen with someone she didn’t want to be known to have been with, so she claims rape. If those were the facts here, then I would agree with an officer refusing to make an arrest (although he could state the reasoning in a better way).

I don’t know about Cali, but in Ohio any oral, vaginal, or anal penetration is rape. The penetrators include objects, digits, genitals, and tongues. Since rape is about control and not sex, orgasm has nothing to do with this. If this girl is telling the truth, I hope she owns these idiots.

The high school in which I teach recently dealt with a rape trial that became an international sensation. As part of our new training we were inserviced about Ohio rape laws and the rape investigation process. What you are suggesting happens so rarely, and when it does the investigators (real investigators) know and eliminate the issue almost immediately. There are actually more rapes that go unreported than girls claiming rape when it didn’t really happen. Also, and again this is Ohio, a person can give consent but the person to whom consent was given can still be charged and found guilty of rape. If the person giving consent is in a state where he or she cannot possibly make the proper decision for him or herself (i.e. under the influence of drugs or alcohol), then that is also rape.

Since I took SexEd 101 way back about the time of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it could very well have been what may have been thought was up-to-date at the time. It could have been based on interviews with pregnant teens (Yeah, my BF and I diddled around, but he pulled it out well before ejaculation). Or, it could have even been the 1970s version of "Reefer Madness" to scare teens into sensible behavior.

In those days, ejaculation or not didn't get you off the hook for a rape charge. For that matter, neither did penetration or not. We knew that any kind of intimate unwanted sexual contact between your private parts could put you on or even over that line and behaved accordingly, for the most part.

We also knew that slapping or pinching a girl on the butt, while rude, didn't even come close. Now the law and definitions are so screwed up that society can talk about "penetration which doesn't result in ejaculation" NOT being rape, on one hand, and about brushing against a woman's breasts even accidentally POSSIBLY being rape on the other. Go figure.

I can't make sense of it other than the normal libtard tactic of dividing society and creating chaos from which the libtards can harness to gain political power.

48
posted on 07/25/2013 11:45:23 AM PDT
by Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)

ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE . . . (a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape . . . Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

The military has it right (although you can't rape your wife???). I hope this is a moron who misinterpreted California law and not a mistake in CA law. That was rape, what Whoopi Goldberg calls "rape-rape", even if he stopped, and the rapist should be prosecuted for his crime.

50
posted on 07/25/2013 12:44:31 PM PDT
by Pollster1
("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.